Uechi-Ryu.com

"OldFist" is the new and official Forum Arbitrator. "I plan to do a straight forward job of moderating, just upholding the mission statement of the forums, trying to make sure that everyone is courteous, and that no one is rudely intimidated by anyone else."

Ø Then I believe him and think we should at least consider his point of view (even if in the end we don't agree) and not dismiss it out of hand as "ridiculous." Shouldn't we at least try?

· Certainly. We wish, after all, to make these forums a place for all to feel welcome.

Looking back into my forum’s history, there were words, which were directly ‘challenging’ of traditional martial arts beliefs, designed at stimulating debate. Words that reflected the studies and experiences of lethal force trainers, studies of Bruce Siddle, studies of Tony Blauer, studies of Scott Sonnon, studies of Darren Laur, and other such well respected gentlemen.

It was hard to break through with new concepts for many readers here of TMA persuasion.

For example: when I first introduced the chemical cocktail and the adverse effects it might create on some our traditional techniques, this concept created shock and disbelief.

Every one of us can go over the top from time to time, but from where my PC is, over here, I see Van going out of his way NOT to diss yet still bring REALITY to the forum, which is his forum's main thrust. It seems that addressing reality is offensive, if so then that problem may rest with the receiver of the information. I do not recall Van ever out rightly dismissing a logical argument, or ever posting a personal attack, fact is that Van is the one citing facts most of the time which seems to make some people around here go absolutely berserk... When citing facts from experts translates into slinging insults and using straw man tactics because it doesn’t quite fit in with what’s on the flyer, or in the curriculum, then perhaps it's time to revaluate our world view.

Have I ever been ‘over the top’? But of course, and so has every one else here including George, when it comes to the so called ‘phantom insults’ _ you may recall the Patrick McCarthy incident, where comments by Gem infuriated his Canadian representative so much so that he wanted no part of these forums.

The point is, we all make mistakes, and yes, we should try and ‘clean up’ our respective acts, but where do we draw the line?

Will _ taking a certain position based on the evidence and experiences of other than ‘pure’ TMA practitioners, always be perceived as offensive, simply because it doesn’t fit with the TMA’s world views?

Let’s say I quote language from Peyton Quinn’s books, as I have in the past, or from David Grossman’s book ‘On combat’ _ as examples_ and relate that language to our ways and methods of training/operant conditioning_ expressing opinions_ will TMA practitioners be justified in ‘crying foul’?

If so, then we should be better off saying goodbye to these forums, because there will be a shortage of topics.

Today’s defensive component is more complex than ever, we all learn new things all the time, hell, even extended personal rants that provoked reaction, actually result in the most interesting topics.

So I guess the point of this should be: what makes a good discussion? Are we able to quantify what it is that sets us off and makes us want to spend as long as it takes meticulously quoting our adversary (faux or not), or do we just "feel" it? Do we only get involved if we know about it already (do you like to explain more) or do you jump in without knowledge and ask big flowery questions about it (do you like to delve into the unknown more)?

The key to our discussions, is to hopefully stimulate the people who don't seem excited enough _ to step to the front and confront the elephant in the room and bounce even the ‘bull sh@@’ off one another.

A form of learning and emotional conditioning.

Should we use better terms, more forgiving language?

By all means.

But where would these forums be now without the better-quantified ‘hardcore’ topics of discussion!

Instead of writing posts that makes us feel good, we should concentrate on subjects we can ‘slice fine’ to see and know that we are developing our intellect by stating something specific and asking ourselves or others questions, instead of pleading ‘insult’ _

Over the years we have seen Debates, Discussions and forums wane.

Occasionally we do get a good thread or two, but for the most part, there isn't much . . . the whole place has been dead and uninspired for ages.

This isn't a ‘Site Comment] thing, this isn't a Moderator thing; this should be a place where ultimate responsibility for enrichment comes from each of us.

This quote should sum it up

The one universal rule for doing something better is to remain skeptical when there is time, and kick ass when there is none.

Their was a time this page was about verbal defense language to defuse.

The it became the sin bin were things could be worked out between parties.

Not sure what purpose it serves now. The tournament rules judicator?

It appears I've been tried and convicted in my absence. Allowed to return to the forums to hear the verdict. So be it. I'll not bother posting on this forum as it serves no value that I can see.JMO

Bill, yes my post on prison rape might have shocked someones grandmother, but I target no one personaly and I called no one a liar did I? Your former student was comfortable implying I was and you seem content to let it ride.

Double standard, or just how it is, it no
longers matters. I've had enough. I have no plans of visiting any pages other than Van's and Rick's. I'm done with you folk. George if possible and not to inconvient could you please ban me from all other pages.

Hip...Hip.. Hooray!!!! Way to go John and congratulations I never had the pleasure of meeting you but I must say you seem like a very reasonable and good man from your posts and what I see as your fair and balanced approach to things..I think you're a breath of fresh air on the forum as a moderator to add to the many good ones. congrats and may you moderate for a long time to come..GOOD STUFF and CONGRATS JOHN...you're going to make one heck of a moderator...

jorvik wrote:John,so you are the moderator here...let me say, that you are an excellent choice ......you have equanimity ( i'm afraid I don't )

Jorvik, thanks for the kind words! "equanimity" doesn't that mean that you are way damn smarter than me?

uglyelk wrote:Interest anology John. I'm not much of a competetive fighter these days. I tend to just keep fighting until someone stops me, or until my opponent stops moving.

So I quess we will have to pretend I got ko'd and move on, seeing no one is willing to point out the faux pas I've made, I'm doomed to repeat it again.

Not much sense having a vsd forum if we are not willing to explore these issues. JMO.

I'll take you advice and move on John, but I've got to tell you I don't fell like I got KO'd, I feel like I got sucker punched and that *****.

I expect it will happen again. But hey my participation is my own choice. If I don't like the rules of the game I'm always free to opt out.

I suspect I'll get banned again for treating folks the way they treat folks.

Good luck with your new forum John , I hear it's a thankless task.

Laird

Laird, thanks a lot for your understanding, cooperation, and good wishes!

Randy Pelletier wrote:John, I disagree with this analogy as sparring and verbal communication are completely different in judgement requirements.

When we enter a competition, the judgement has to be quick and decisive for the continuity of the match as well as the respect for the skills of the participants and their skills. Yes, sometimes a bad call is made but those are the rules in a fast paced environment where you cannot take back your action. You cannot reflect on the move you just did to lose the point and take it back afterwards to your advantage.

Randy, I see what you're saying, but the main point of my analogy is the finality of the decision by the judges, who make their judgement calls independently of those that are judged and who are not required to explain their decision later. However, usually most judges will try to give you an explanation if you ask, though it is not the right of the competitors to demand a public explanation of their actions. This is what I was referring to regarding this forum. Apparently, we do have an arbitration process which I will be involved in over the next few days.

Bill Glasheen wrote:For the record, I PM-ed the post I deleted to the moderator. OK, John? - Bill

Thanks Bill, got it.

Van Canna wrote:John, welcome aboard. Ø Van, suppose we assume that the 95% isn't quite right, but that there is some nonzero percentage of TMA's that visit this forum that agree with George <

· Okay, John_ then why not write the correct nonzero % vs. the 95%? Hyperbole? Ø Then I believe him and think we should at least consider his point of view (even if in the end we don't agree) and not dismiss it out of hand as "ridiculous." Shouldn't we at least try?

Certainly. We wish, after all, to make these forums a place for all to feel welcome.

Looking back into my forum’s history, there were words, which were directly ‘challenging’ of traditional martial arts beliefs, designed at stimulating debate. Words that reflected the studies and experiences of lethal force trainers, studies of Bruce Siddle, studies of Tony Blauer, studies of Scott Sonnon, studies of Darren Laur, and other such well respected gentlemen.

It was hard to break through with new concepts for many readers here of TMA persuasion. For example: when I first introduced the chemical cocktail and the adverse effects it might create on some our traditional techniques, this concept created shock and disbelief.

Van, thanks a lot for the welcome! I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for your technical expertise regarding mindset and reality based self-defense, and I do appreciate the obstacles you've had to overcome to get your message across. Your forum is one of the main reasons why I began visiting and why I still visit here.

Mills75 wrote:Oldfist !!!!!!!

Hip...Hip.. Hooray!!!! Way to go John and congratulations I never had the pleasure of meeting you but I must say you seem like a very reasonable and good man from your posts and what I see as your fair and balanced approach to things..I think you're a breath of fresh air on the forum as a moderator to add to the many good ones. congrats and may you moderate for a long time to come..GOOD STUFF and CONGRATS JOHN...you're going to make one heck of a moderator...

Jeff

Hey Jeff, thanks very much for the vote of confidence! Now, I really have something to live up to ...

The dim streetlights hardly cast any light but what they did showed shadowy figures. Clearly an altercation had taken place. The dark stains of blood formed small pools here and there and larger ones in a few places.

Two, three, no maybe four bodies were prone on the ground but struggling to rise.

The fight had been brutal, fast yet seemed to drag out far longer than expected.

But it was over and those who were beaten and tired could now lick their wounds and heal.

But then… a figure emerged from the shadows. Only watching previously. Not wanting to get involved sooner.

But now thinking everyone was tired and beaten he decided to emerge and enter the fray.

Little did he know the fighting spirit of those he was about to encounter.

Far from done. Always ready…

The image above is how I see this “late” entry into the fray rather than when it was all taking place on the weekend. Admittedly not a flattering opinion but then it is just my perception which some feel is too sensitive. Wow I am sensitive, haven’t been called that much.

Bill, the statement was made that the original post was of a far less barbed version. I had not seen the original post.

Because you decided stand back from the fray it allowed that statement to stand uncontested and therefore stood as fact. Very odd to try now to step in after the fight is over and plead your case.

You are indeed that forum’s moderator and can choose to delete whatever you wish. I can comment on whatever I wish. If you chose to stand back from a fray then accept what comes.

You asked what I would have done.

Personally I would have left the post and dealt with it (if it were my forum.) That way there would be no misunderstandings of what has taken place. This is why I am against deleting posts or trying to rewrite history by changing them.

Laird felt you had crossed the line by attacking Van’s ethics and character so he jumped over the line with both feet.

On my forum, I would have dealt with the two issues: What I had said, and how the person chose to bring it to my attention.

Instead you chose to take an action with (as you stated) a known outcome. So everything happened as expected.

As I said that was your forum and you could chose to handle it in any fashion you wish and you knew what the outcome would be.

Me, I like to stand my ground and slug it out rather than stepping back and letting others fight it out only to come in later.

I would have looked at what I said and either stood by it or apologized.

If I thought the person approached it wrong (regardless of if I had been wrong) I would have dropped them (figuratively speaking).

So, Bill it is now somewhat immaterial to me how the original post was (that scrap is over). I would have previously (and do now) accepted your reply that the two were identical as fact (without needing to see a copy.)

In my opinion you should have left it and blasted Laird with both barrels for his approach if you didn’t like it.

In my opinion you should have also apologised for attacking Van’s character.

You say you were just debating.

And here I thought we were in discussions to improve learning rather than “win.”

You should know here and now that if you state that I have done something unethical, deceitful, and fraudulent and basically an out and out lie, then please be advised that it will be my perception that you have called me unethical, deceitful, a fraud and a liar. (And this interpretation also comes from a former debating champion with a degree in Communications and Professional Writing.)

So this remains my perception of how you have treated Van.

But as you say it that is your forum and you handle things differently. That is, as I have said before, your prerogative.

You also state I should not carry old baggage into these frays.

I see it as recognizing and pointing out a pattern of behaviour. I see a progression in some of your discussions: discuss and exchange, debate and bait, and then when things get dicey, condescension, then an attempt to discredit the other person, and finally insults. This has been my observations over the years. Doesn’t happen all the time but I see it happens. IMNSHO

You have asked where things got off track between you and me. Frankly you have posted this before and it shocks me.

When did we get off track?

When you started insulting my school, my students and myself.

What other outcome could you possibly imagine?

Did you think these insults would make us the best of friends?

Did you think I would ignore the insults?

Perhaps others can turn a blind eye to the insults but I will never do so.

Perhaps some write your personal insults off (as George has posted) to Bill writing too much and too fast to know how what he is saying will be taken.

Perhaps some write your personal insults off (as George has posted) to Bill just letting his pompous side show again.

Perhaps they choose to over look your personal insults but I do not.

The baggage you refer to is not all that old because it seems to get renewed every time we try and discuss anything. (It just happened very recently in fact on my forum.)

Why did we get off track?

Your personal insults that I chose not to ignore.

This may be why I am more perceptive (or some might say sensitive ) of when it happens than others are.

Bill, insulting a person, their school or their students is not the tactic you use on someone you respect no matter how many times you say you do.

"What you do thunders above your head so loudly, I cannot hear the words you speak." Ralph Waldo Emerson

I look to see what is done not just what is just said.

And apologizes become meaningless when the behaviour is repeated.

We will never approach things the same way. I would not sit back and let others argue then try to join in after the mess has taken place.

You will find me right there in the middle shoulder to shoulder with those I care about protecting the good name of a person I respect greatly.

For those who disagree with me please know you have every right to your opinion and perceptions and most certainly every right to post and tell me what you think.

For those who consider themselves as much a friend of Bill’s as I consider myself Van’s there is nothing wrong with standing by him and saying your piece. That’s what loyal friends do. I take no offence to that.

I considered this fray over and done but if more clarification of where I stand is required please post your questions or comments.

John you are now the moderator and can take this forum whatever direction you please. However, as Laird said this forum has previously be used to take “hot” threads off the other forums so we could be more "forthright" in how we state things.

If this is no longer the case then there is no need to remove hot threads from the other forums to here.

Again, you are the forum moderator and it is entirely up to you as to what is now going to take place here. I personally have always enjoyed your posts.

I have attempted to post my response in a less confrontational manner in respect of your wishes but some times the honest truth is blunt and that can appear confrontational to some.

Last edited by Rick Wilson on Tue May 03, 2005 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jim interpreted what I said in the way I meant it , the fact that I perceived a continued slight on Vans work . That the admission of the offence taken (by GEM ) seemed to show that the perception had some base .

I have little knowledge about Ivy league debating , I think the best course is to post sincerely and back up with reference where able .

how can we pursue these matters in a better fashion .

Is there a more appropriate way to word what I did , so as to not be labelled a Strawman , and to be recognised as posting a genuine concern ?

Marcus, good question, I will be interesting to see if you get the courtesy of a reply

Laird, thanks a lot for your understanding, cooperation, and good wishes!

John, Don't assume a thing . I do not understand a darn thing that's going on. As far as I'm concerned I've been given the dirty end of the stick by a few high muckie mucks.I don't like it much!

I'll try this one more time.

I made a post about Bills rude insulting approach to aforum members. Yes this is not the first time it has happened. I've been calling Bill on this kind of stuff for a long time.

I got banned for my efforts.

You may notice Ricks post discussing these very same issues! I guess I'm not the only one who has noticed a problem with Bills approach.

I return from my short exile to find my post on Bills behaviour has grown into a few threads.

I ask for clarrification on this page.People are claiming I've broken the rules. I don't believe so. Your response the tournament is over!

Man I wasn't even part of the tournament. I saw a post offering you the job of moderator, then Gem tells me to talk to the moderator. No one made any kind of anouncement.

Though thats kind of standard isn't it, no one told me I was banned, I just discovered it. Then no one told me I was no longer banned I just discovered it.

John Did someone tell you you were the moderator or did you just suddenly discover an extra large delete button on your screen? (Joke)

I'm not that familiar with you John, I've read some old fist posts, but I'm like several folks when I wonder who you are. Would you be kind enough to introduce your self and tell us about your self and possibly your goals and objectives for this forum. It's kind of a grey area for me right now, what is the purpose of this page?

Forgive for what I'm about to say.. I mean no offence. I do not trust you at the present time. I have tried to explore some issues and your response has been basically piss off case closed! You kind of arrived in the middle of this witch hunt, so I see you at this moment as part of the hunt and not a neutral party. Your response to my last post was to ignore it and sweep it under the table. I don't see a value in the services your offering.

George is the one that banned me, Bill is the one that cried foul. Who are you and why am I talking to you John. I feel like your job is just to run interference for George and Bill. George and Bill have not bothered to explain their actions . They are not transparent in their dealings.

Once again a mission statement might help to better understand your purpose. So far your just some guy out of the blue ducking the issue and telling me to piss off cause it's over.

The people who have accused me of fouls are hidding behind you. My participation on your page is a waste of everyones time.

Gentlemen, if your looking for good spots to hide I understand those old fashioned hoop dresses offer lots of cover.